From another blog
As I see it, we're both exploring the sexual question. You, perhaps from the point of view of heterosexuals looking at homosexuals and I from the point of view of looking at sexuality itself and trying to expose how "aberration" is equally manifest in both practices all throughout.
The dimension of sexuality in our lives is an amazingly substantial one but only one of the many dimensions.
In relation to homosexuality there are many questions to pose worth exploring in relation to the church which is your aim here. I would ask, why has homosexuality so strongly developed precisely within the roman catholic church with all its well known practices of priests manipulating and abusing the choir boys? Is it that in the churches dogma in which women didn't even have a soul, together with the prohibition of marriage , that priests had no other outlet than to "fall in love" with the choir boys that are still somewhat "feminine"?
In the authoritarian patriarchal societies in which we've been developing for the past thirty thousand years does there not exist that link of pride between men that somehow makes them prone to look for the admiration of other men rather than the acceptance and approval of women? Since the roles had been so strictly separated with women for the housekeeping and men for the social, political and military life, is it in any way surprising that men were as conditioned as women to look for male approval in their development rather than female approval and "connivence"? This "search" for "approval" within a society is what conditions young people to act in a particular direction. This "falling in love" that inspires young people to work and improve themselves to impress their elders and gain their admiration is in fact what has almost been totally lost today with the loss of the "community".
These things seem important if we really wish to understand homosexuality or for that matter, the heterosexuality of our days. The idea that homosexuality just IS, that a person is simply BORN a homosexual is highly questionable to me. This may be so in a few cases and so be it in those but what I think is worth exploring and understanding is that people's sexuality, be it homosexual or heterosexual is as conditioned by their personal as much as social world as whether they are republicans, architects or cleaners.
I am certainly with those who are defending and protecting the rights of homosexuals to equal rights as those as heterosexuals but I am equally convinced that THAT doesn't make heterosexuality or homosexuality less important subjects for exploration, for the unhealthiness in both practices is equally expressing the need for extensive study. Do people become homosexuals because they are physically determined to do so or were they conditioned to do so because during that period in which their sexuality was not totally defined, they moved into a homo practice trying to balance out losses in their upbringing?
Are heterosexual practices today any less marred by "unhealthiness" than homosexual practices? Is heterosexuality supposed to be healthy because women stay with their husband all their lives even though both are incredibly stunted as human beings? Is "marriage" what can determine the health of our sexuality?
How does the homosexual practice transform the male inner nature of a man or the female inner nature of a woman? Where and how do we see those transformations being expressed? What are the connections between our sexuality, our intellectuality, our emotionality and our physicality?
How do we socially connect to the opposite genre when we are in the extreme spectrum of homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Could we consider that homosexuality is a byproduct of machism? That the authoritarian patriarchal society has in fact brought us to homosexuality in the wake of its myriad imbalances?
That HIDING the woman for ever too many centuries, has brought the woman out of men and the man out of women? That we've been somehow "crushing" our selves like lemon juice and in that "crushing" the men were forced to bring out their female soul to expression to compensate for the incredible imbalance and women, shunned to the rims, forced to bring out the male soul within themselves?
Did that make us any more human? Did it make us more manly or womanly? Are our children any better off?
How can we connect our sexual practices to our social conditions? Are the neoliberal societies taking a clear step towards fascism in which submission of the people no matter the sex is the status quo or can we move towards clearly democratic orders?
Are governments relating to the masses which have been understood as inherently "feminine" in the same authoritarian, dictatorial way in which the macho heterosexual "father" behaves towards his wife and his children? Keep them alive but submissive?
Is that not the overt message of the Jewish people on the palestinian people? But clearly the message of all our modern regimes?
The "balance" between genres is really the issue worth looking at because the female and the male are not only people but forces within society. The traditionally male authority is not balanced and our individual sexuality simply expresses its malfunctions, incarnates them and reverts them back to society. That we are not to blame or punish our selves for what we are is clearly the first step towards compassion for what we've become as heterosexuals and homosexuals but pretending that accepting our malfunctions in either practice is what we have to make lawful is equally unacceptable.
Your question above that where are we when divorce is the rule on the one hand while marriage the demand on the other, should clearly reveal to us that the problem is not simply in the discussion of marriage but in the understanding of our selves as human beings without isolating the problems.
All these questions are ones that I ask myself, please don't allow me to "attack" you with them! Just thanks for the opportunity to share them.
As I see it, we're both exploring the sexual question. You, perhaps from the point of view of heterosexuals looking at homosexuals and I from the point of view of looking at sexuality itself and trying to expose how "aberration" is equally manifest in both practices all throughout.
The dimension of sexuality in our lives is an amazingly substantial one but only one of the many dimensions.
In relation to homosexuality there are many questions to pose worth exploring in relation to the church which is your aim here. I would ask, why has homosexuality so strongly developed precisely within the roman catholic church with all its well known practices of priests manipulating and abusing the choir boys? Is it that in the churches dogma in which women didn't even have a soul, together with the prohibition of marriage , that priests had no other outlet than to "fall in love" with the choir boys that are still somewhat "feminine"?
In the authoritarian patriarchal societies in which we've been developing for the past thirty thousand years does there not exist that link of pride between men that somehow makes them prone to look for the admiration of other men rather than the acceptance and approval of women? Since the roles had been so strictly separated with women for the housekeeping and men for the social, political and military life, is it in any way surprising that men were as conditioned as women to look for male approval in their development rather than female approval and "connivence"? This "search" for "approval" within a society is what conditions young people to act in a particular direction. This "falling in love" that inspires young people to work and improve themselves to impress their elders and gain their admiration is in fact what has almost been totally lost today with the loss of the "community".
These things seem important if we really wish to understand homosexuality or for that matter, the heterosexuality of our days. The idea that homosexuality just IS, that a person is simply BORN a homosexual is highly questionable to me. This may be so in a few cases and so be it in those but what I think is worth exploring and understanding is that people's sexuality, be it homosexual or heterosexual is as conditioned by their personal as much as social world as whether they are republicans, architects or cleaners.
I am certainly with those who are defending and protecting the rights of homosexuals to equal rights as those as heterosexuals but I am equally convinced that THAT doesn't make heterosexuality or homosexuality less important subjects for exploration, for the unhealthiness in both practices is equally expressing the need for extensive study. Do people become homosexuals because they are physically determined to do so or were they conditioned to do so because during that period in which their sexuality was not totally defined, they moved into a homo practice trying to balance out losses in their upbringing?
Are heterosexual practices today any less marred by "unhealthiness" than homosexual practices? Is heterosexuality supposed to be healthy because women stay with their husband all their lives even though both are incredibly stunted as human beings? Is "marriage" what can determine the health of our sexuality?
How does the homosexual practice transform the male inner nature of a man or the female inner nature of a woman? Where and how do we see those transformations being expressed? What are the connections between our sexuality, our intellectuality, our emotionality and our physicality?
How do we socially connect to the opposite genre when we are in the extreme spectrum of homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Could we consider that homosexuality is a byproduct of machism? That the authoritarian patriarchal society has in fact brought us to homosexuality in the wake of its myriad imbalances?
That HIDING the woman for ever too many centuries, has brought the woman out of men and the man out of women? That we've been somehow "crushing" our selves like lemon juice and in that "crushing" the men were forced to bring out their female soul to expression to compensate for the incredible imbalance and women, shunned to the rims, forced to bring out the male soul within themselves?
Did that make us any more human? Did it make us more manly or womanly? Are our children any better off?
How can we connect our sexual practices to our social conditions? Are the neoliberal societies taking a clear step towards fascism in which submission of the people no matter the sex is the status quo or can we move towards clearly democratic orders?
Are governments relating to the masses which have been understood as inherently "feminine" in the same authoritarian, dictatorial way in which the macho heterosexual "father" behaves towards his wife and his children? Keep them alive but submissive?
Is that not the overt message of the Jewish people on the palestinian people? But clearly the message of all our modern regimes?
The "balance" between genres is really the issue worth looking at because the female and the male are not only people but forces within society. The traditionally male authority is not balanced and our individual sexuality simply expresses its malfunctions, incarnates them and reverts them back to society. That we are not to blame or punish our selves for what we are is clearly the first step towards compassion for what we've become as heterosexuals and homosexuals but pretending that accepting our malfunctions in either practice is what we have to make lawful is equally unacceptable.
Your question above that where are we when divorce is the rule on the one hand while marriage the demand on the other, should clearly reveal to us that the problem is not simply in the discussion of marriage but in the understanding of our selves as human beings without isolating the problems.
All these questions are ones that I ask myself, please don't allow me to "attack" you with them! Just thanks for the opportunity to share them.
No comments:
Post a Comment